Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WILFP
~o U<.J;;: C~P>
,.f;. <~N
Divisii n ~~'L '<'f. ~.f CCH.li ~,
~epublit of tbe Jbilippine~ T~:f.1--J 1
): \'~f::~c~
~upreme QI:ourt AUG 0 4 2016
:fflanila
THIRD DIVISION
-versus-
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
-versus-
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 185857-58), pp. 78-96. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren with
Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 194314-14), pp. 40-42. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba with
Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
Consolidated via CA Resolution dated O?to er 7, 2004, rollo (G.R. No. 185857-58), p. 84.
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 185857-58), pp. 33-75.
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 194314-15), pp. 3-17.
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
The Antecedents
20 /datll2. (
Id. at 81.
?I
- Id. at97-107
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
her own money but Godofredo had the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in
his name instead of his mother-in-law; 22 (2) Godofredo and Baldomera were
only trustees of the property in favor of the real owner and beneficiary,
Melecia; 23 (3) they only knew about the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale
upon verification with the Registry of Deeds; 24 and (4) the College was a
25
buyer in bad faith, being aware they were co-owners of the property.
26
In its Answer with Affirmative Defenses, the College claimed that it
is a buyer in good faith and for value, having "made exhaustive
investigations and verifications from all reliable sources" that Melecia and
her heirs were staying in the property by mere tolerance. 27 It alleged that: ( l)
28
in the tax declaration of the residential house, Melecia admitted that the lot
owner is Godofredo; 29 (2) the occupancy permit of Melecia was issued only
after Godofredo issued a certification30 to the effect that Melecia was
allowed to occupy a portion of the property; 31 and (3) the Extrajudicial
Settlement with Sale was published in three consecutive issues of Mindanao
Post, a newspaper of general circulation. 32
22
Id. at 98.
21
Id. at 99.
24
Id. at IOI.
25
Id. at l 00.
26
Id. at 132--138.
27
Id. at 133.
28
Id. at 139.
29
Id. at 134.
30
Id at 140.
31
Id. at 133-134.
32
Id at 134, 141.
33
Id. at 123-131.
34
Id. at 127.
35
y, Id. at
Id. 128.
at 175-178. '
37
Id. at 184-188.
38
Id. at 184-185 ..
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
39
constructed at her expense. The College had prior knowledge of this co-
ownership, and hence, was a purchaser in bad faith. 40 The Heirs of Melecia
also raised the defense of forum-shopping in view of the pendency of the
action for reconveyance. 41 They then concluded that in view of the issues
and the value of the property, as well, the MTCC had no jurisdiction over
42
the case.
The MTCC found it had jurisdiction to hear the case and ruled m
favor of the College: 43
SO ORDERED. 44
39
Id. at 185.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 185857-58), pp. 185-186.
43
ld.at231-237.
44
Id. at 237.
46
Id. at 293-302.
47
Id. at 301-302.
i
49
Id. at 321-322.
so Id. at 326-346.
51
Id. at 82.
52
53
Id. at 557-568.
Id. at 558.
54
ld.at561-565.
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
v
by virtue of theiJing the legal heirs of Baldomera
D. Nacalaban;
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
SO ORDERED. 55
Both parties filed separate appeals from this Decision before the CA. 57
In a Resolution 58 dated October 7, 2004, the CA consolidated both appeals.
59
The CA rendered its Decision on December 11, 2008 dismissing the
consolidated appeals and affirming in toto the RTC Decisions in the
unlawful detainer case and the action for reconveyance. The CA held that:
( 1) the defense of co-ownership based on an implied trust by a defendant in
an unlawful detainer case shall not divest the MTCC of jurisdiction over the
case; 60 (2) the dead man's statute does not apply because Gabutan, et al.'s
counsel did not interpose any objection when the testimony of Crisanta
Ubaub was offered and Gabutan, et al.'s counsel even examined her; 61 (3)
Nacalaban, et al.'s claim that Gabutan, et al.'s witnesses are not competent
to testify on matters which took place before the death of Godofredo and
Melecia is without merit because Gabutan, et al. have not specified these
witnesses and such hearsay evidence alluded to; 62 ( 4) the parole evidence
rule does not apply because Melecia and Nacalaban, et al. were not parties to
63
the Deed of Conditional Sale; (5) the action for reconveyance has not yet
prescribed because Gabutan, et al. are in possession of the property; 64 and
(6) the College is a buyer in good faith. 65
On the other hand, Gabutan, et al. filed the present petition for review
71
on certiorari under Rule 45, seeking a partial appeal of the CA Decision.
In their petition, Gabutan, et al. allege that the College is not a buyer in good
faith because it did not buy the property from the registered owner. 72 Since
55
Id. at 567-568.
57
Id. at 79.
58
Id. at 614-615.
59
Id. at 78-96.
60
Id. at 88.
61
Id. at 90.
62
Id. at 90-91.
63
Id. at 91.
64
Id. at 93-94.
65
Id. at 95.
66
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 194314-15), pp. 40-42.
67
Id. at 3-17.
68
Id. at 7-8.
69 Id.
70 1
Rollo (G.R. No/s. 94314-15), pp. 10-11.
71
Rollo (G.R. Nos 185857-58), pp. 33-75.
72
Id. at 56-57.
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
Godofredo was the registered owner of the property and not Nacalaban, et
al., the College should have exercised a higher degree of prudence in
establishing their capacity to sell it. 73 Further, despite knowing that other
persons possessed the property, the College did not inquire with Gabutan, et
al. the nature of their stay on the property. 74 Under Section 1, paragraph 2,
Rule 7 4 of the Rules of Court, the publication of the Extrajudicial Settlement
with Sale was also without prejudice to claims of other persons who had no
notice or participation thereof. 75 Finally, Gabutan, et al. argue that they
cannot be ejected from the prope1iy because there is no evidence to show
that their stay was by mere tolerance, and that Melecia was a builder in good
faith. 76
The Issues
Our Ruling
79
Malayang Manggagawa ng Stayfast I'hils., Inc. v. National labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
155306, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 24, 36, citing Balayan v. Acorda, G.R. No. 153537, May 5, 2006,
489 SCRA 637, 641-642.
80
G. R. No. 155306, August 28, 2013, 704 SCRA 24.
81
Id. at 35-36, citing Bugarin v. Palisoc, G.R. No. 157985, December 2, 2005, 476 SCRA 587, 595-596.
82
Id. at 36.
83
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 194314-15), p. 4.
84
Id. at 3.
85
The exceptions are the following:
(a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates;
(b) when the broader interest of justice so requires;
(c) when the writs issued are null and void; or
(d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165910, April 10, 2006,
487 SCRA 78, 100.
86
Tankeh v. Development1'a k of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171428, November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 19,
44, citing China Banking rporation v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation, G.R. No. 172880,
August 11, 2010, 628 SC A 154, 168, citing Tagle v. Equitable PC! Bank, G.R. No. 172299, April 22,
2008, 552 SCRA 424.
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
Article 1448 of the Civil Code provides in part that there is an implied
trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but
the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest
of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary.
The trust created here, which is also referred to as a purchase money
resulting trust, 89 occurs when there is ( l) an actual payment of money,
property or services, or an equivalent, constituting valuable consideration;
(2) and such consideration must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a
resulting trust. 90 These two elements are present here.
87
Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, G.R. No. 196023, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 623, 633.
88
Chu, Jr. v. Caparas, G.R. No. 175428, April 15, 2013, 696 SCRA 324, 333.
89
Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, supra at 635-636, citing Comilang v. Burcena, G.R. No. 146853, February 13,
2006, 482 SCRA 342, 350.
90
Pigao v. Rabanillo, G.R. No. 150712, May 2, 2006, 488 SCRA 546, 561, citing Morales v. Court of'
Appeals, G.R. No. yl 7228, June 19, 1997, 274 SCRA 282.
91
Rollo (G.R. Nos/ 185867-58), p. 560.
92
Id. at 559.
93
Id. at 558.
94
Id. at 560.
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
95 Id.
96 Id.
97
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 185867-58), p. 559.
98
G.R. No. 196023, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 623.
99
Id. at 636-637.
100
Id. at 637, citing Estate of'Margarita D. Cahacungan v. Laigo, G.R. No. 175073, August 15, 2011,
655 SCRA 366, 380.
101
Rollo (G.R. No?. 18 867-58), pp. 561-562.
102
Id. at 123-124.
103
Id. at 561-562.
Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
The fact that the property was already titled in Godofredo's name,
and later transferred to the College, is not a hindrance to an action for
reconveyance based on an implied trust. The title did not operate to vest
ownership upon the property in favor of the College. As held in Naval v.
Court of Appeals: 108
109
Id. at 113.
110
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 185857-58), pp. 378-380.
111
Francisco v. Rojas, G.R. No. 167120, April 23, 2014, 723 SCRA 423, 455, citing Vda. de Cabrera v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108547, February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 339.
112
Ney v. Quijano, G.R. No. 178609, August 4, 2010, 626 SCRA 800, 808, citing Mendizabel v. Apao,
f
G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 587, 609.
113
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 185857-58), pp. 175-178.
'" See BHo, Sr. ' D;aao/ a, G. R. No. 171717, Dewnb" 15, 20 JO, 638 SCRA 529, 539.
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
Despite the finding that the property was owned by Melecia and upon
her death, by her heirs, the lower courts still sustained the ownership of the
College of the property on the ground that it is an innocent purchaser for
118
value. The lower courts' findings are grounded on the following: (i)
Gabutan, et al. 's claim was never annotated on Godofredo's title; (ii) the
Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale was duly published and the College was
able to effect the transfer of the title in its name; (iii) Baldomera issued a
certification in favor of Melecia allowing her to occupy a portion of the lot;
and (iv) the tax declaration showed that Melecia owned only the building on
the land owned by Godofredo. 119
The R TC reiterated the rule that the buyer of a land registered under
the Torrens System may rely upon the face of the certificate of title and does
120
not have to look beyond it. The CA, on the other hand, held that when
115
Brito, Sr. v. Dianala, supra at 537.
116
Midway Maritime and Technological Foundation v. Castro, G.R. No. 189061, August 6, 2014, 732
SCRA 193, 200, citing Rzdloe v. Burgos, G.R. No. 143573, .January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 264, 272.
117
Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, supra note 98 at 637.
118
119
Rollo (G.R.;o. 185857-58), p. 567.
Id at 95.
120
Id. at 567.
Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
taken together, these facts would reasonably constitute enough reason for the
College or any buyer to conclude that the property is free from any adverse
claim, thereby making any further investigation unnecessary. Absent any
showing that the College knew of the actual arrangement between
121
Godofredo and Melecia, it must be deemed a buyer in good faith.
Gabutan, et al. alleged that the lower courts erred in ruling that the
College is a buyer in good faith, raising the following: (1) Nacalaban, et al.
are not the registered owners of the property; Godofredo is the registered
122
owner who died on January 7, 1974; (2) not being the registered owners,
the College, as buyer, is expected to examine not only the certificate of title
but all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any
flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the
property; 123 and (3) the College knew that other persons possessed the
property so it should have first established the capacity of the Nacalaban
children to sell the property. 124
Whether one is a buyer in good faith and whether due diligence and
prudence were exercised are questions of fact. 125 As we have already
mentioned, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We see an exception,
however, to this general rule relative to the finding that the College is a
buyer in good faith. We hold that the RTC's finding that the College is a
buyer in good faith, which finding was upheld by the CA, was based on an
obvious misapprehension of facts and was clearly not supported by law and
jurisprudence.
I n .Bautzsta v. s1
1 va, PG
- we reiterate
d t h e reqms1tes
.c:
for one to b e
considered a purchaser in good faith:
Thus, the College, which has the burden to prove the status of being a
purchaser in good faith, is required to prove the concurrence of the above
conditions. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation of
the legal presumption of good faith. 128 We find that the College failed to
discharge this burden.
Secondly, the College was aware that aside from Nacalaban, et al.,
the Heirs of Melecia, were also in possession of the property. The College
cited the tax declaration which bore an annotation that Melecia owned a
127
Id. at 346-348; cited in Uy v. Fu/e, G.R. No. 164961, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 456, 473-474.
128
See Sigaya v. Mayuga, G .R. No. 143254, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 341, 354, citing rotenciano v.
pti"
Reynoso, G.R. No. 140707, April 22, 2003, 401SCRA391, 401.
179 , , . I
- G.R. No. 106042, hbruary 28, 1994, 230 SCRA 446.
"" Id al 4 56, dt;ng R"'HI a and Fajacdo " G ahnd", I07 Ph; I. 480, 484 ( I960).
Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
residential building and Godofredo owned the lot. 131 Also, apart from filing
an ejectment case against the Heirs of Melecia, the College retained part of
the purchase price for the demolition of Melecia's building as well. 132
We are aware that in the ejectment case, the MTCC and RTC ruled in
favor of the College. We emphasize, though, that the ruling on the College's
131
Rollo(G.R. Nos. 185857-58), p. 192; 722-723.
132
TSN, September 16, 1998, pp. 12-15.
133
G.R. No. 156973, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 116.
1
134
Id. at 124.
135
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 185857-58), p. 133.
136
Occeiia v. Esponilla, supra.
137
Santiago v. Villamor, G.R. No. 168499, November 26, 2012, 686 SCRA 313, 321.
138
Id., citing Tio v. Abayata, G.R. No. 160898, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 175, 188-189 and Philip ine
National Bank v. Heirs o(Estanis/ao Militar, G.R. Nos. 164801 & 165165, 494 SCRA 308, 315.
Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
2. Nacalaban, et al. are ordered to return the purchase price paid on the
property to the College, plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum computed from July 23, 1997' 41 until the date of finality of this
judgment. The total amount shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until its
. f:act10n;
sat1s . 142
an d
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
119
Gov. looyuko, G.R. No. 196529, July I, 2013, 700 SCRA 313, 319.
140
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 175720, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 642, 653.
141
Date of filing of the College's Answer with Affirmative Defenses, rollo (G.R. Nos. 185857-58), p. 43.
142
Nacar v. Gallery Frames, G.R. No. 189871, August 13, 2013, 703 SCRA 439, 457-458.
Decision 19 G.R. Nos. 185857-58
& 194314-15
WE CONCUR:
IENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
J. VELASCO, JR.
Ass/ciate Justice
Chairpe/-son, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
wrcrn#L~i-
nivision Clerk of Court
Tb~rd Division
AUG O4 2016